The United States Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold almost
completely in its decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.1 The McConnell decision may mark the beginning of the end of judicial efforts to limit the power of Congress over political speech. In the
absence of constitutional constraints, politics will drive campaign finance
regulation down one of two paths. We have already spent thirty years on
the path of oversight and control of political speech marked out by the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 and by McCain-Feingold. The
difficulties and dangers of that path may convince Americans of the need
for an alternative way forward, a path that comports with the Madisonian
vision of politics. In this chapter I look down the path of increased regulation and lay out an alternative.

Judicial Deference and Free Speech

Near the end of 2003 the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold's
most extensive restrictions on political speech. The decision embodies in
many ways the Progressive vision of politics. Just as the Carolene Products
footnote announced that economic activity no longer enjoyed constitutional protections, McConnell reveals for now that the Court will recognize only minimal protection for political speech in the face of congressional attacks.

The majority opinion stipulates that the constitutionality of McCainFeingold's soft money prohibition requires a balancing of a lesser First
Amendment interest (the right to contribute to campaigns) and the anticorruption rationale. Who strikes that balance? One justice had earlier

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.